From all of the talk/mention of ESPN Zone that I have heard in the Cincinnati region...I would say its practically a signed deal with them at The Banks.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the 1st phase right on Main St or somewhere within spitting distance of GABP.  I think it will be very cool!

 

BTW ragerunner...he wasn't commenting about the existence of apartments, but rather he was refuting that downtown needs more 'high end' apartments.  Most of the apartments downtown are high end...and imo that is a problem...some more apartments in the $500-$600 per month range would be great!

 

It would be quiet a 'land' if they get an ESPN Zone since there are only 8 of them in the US. I say Hard Rock Cafe is the first to sign a contract.

^ Okay food. Go there for the atmosphere, nothing else.

 

At least they did not announce Planet Hollywood!

BTW ragerunner...he wasn't commenting about the existence of apartments, but rather he was refuting that downtown needs more 'high end' apartments.  Most of the apartments downtown are high end...and imo that is a problem...some more apartments in the $500-$600 per month range would be great!

 

You guys crack me up, the last thing we need in supposedly most desireable property in the city, are affordable apartments for the masses.  That will really get the suburbanites downtown.  I can picture these people sitting outside their apartments on the steps..... I guess it will make it easier for the people from Kentucky to pickup their crack!  They won't have to drive all the way to OTR.

^ that comment is completely off base.  affordable doesnt mean crack runners.  affordable means people that arent getting paid 150k right out of college can actually live there.  this not an exclisive resort neighborhood only for the super rich.

From all of the talk/mention of ESPN Zone that I have heard in the Cincinnati region...I would say its practically a signed deal with them at The Banks.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the 1st phase right on Main St or somewhere within spitting distance of GABP.  I think it will be very cool!

 

BTW ragerunner...he wasn't commenting about the existence of apartments, but rather he was refuting that downtown needs more 'high end' apartments.  Most of the apartments downtown are high end...and imo that is a problem...some more apartments in the $500-$600 per month range would be great!

 

It would be quiet a 'land' if they get an ESPN Zone since there are only 8 of them in the US. I say Hard Rock Cafe is the first to sign a contract.

 

Mark my words...THERE WILL BE AN ESPN ZONE AT THE BANKS!

^ that comment is completely off base.  affordable doesnt mean crack runners.  affordable means people that arent getting paid 150k right out of college can actually live there.  this not an exclisive resort neighborhood only for the super rich.

 

yeah, the crack comment was a joke... but you are wrong.  It IS an exclusive neighborhood.  The property is too valuable to put cheap affordable housing in it.  Why would anyone want that?  Even if it was affordable, how would you choose who lives there?  What would stop the super rich from renting them to have an extra apartment downtown?  How naive can you be?

 

Does Paul Brown Stadium have any low-cost suites?  Using the same thought process, why not?  Why can't the little guy get to sit in a suite?

 

As far as the design, what is directly underneath/below the 2 restaurants?  Is that a watwerfall or fountain.  it looks like something interesting but I cannot make out what it is.

 

Check out this brochure about the Central Riverfront Park:

http://www.crpark.org/brochure/Trifold6Final.pdf

 

Go to page 2, and look at the part where it says 'Fountains of Blue'...that is what is proposed for that part of the park.

^ that comment is completely off base.  affordable doesnt mean crack runners.  affordable means people that arent getting paid 150k right out of college can actually live there.  this not an exclisive resort neighborhood only for the super rich.

 

yeah, the crack comment was a joke... but you are wrong.  It IS an exclusive neighborhood.  The property is too valuable to put cheap affordable housing in it.  Why would anyone want that?  Even if it was affordable, how would you choose who lives there?  What would stop the super rich from renting them to have an extra apartment downtown?  How naive can you be?

 

Does Paul Brown Stadium have any low-cost suites?  Using the same thought process, why not?  Why can't the little guy get to sit in a suite?

 

First off, cheap is not the same thing as affordable.  What would be great is that a teacher, firefighter, police officer, or any middle class citizen for that matter be able to live downtown.  Whether it is an elite neighborhood or not is not up to me or anyone else on here, but I would like to see the neighborhood actually be a neighborhood rather than a bunch of retired baby boomers looking to spend their retirement money (cough The Ascent cough).

 

Secondly, of course there should not be low cost suites...but should the entire damn stadium be full of $200 tickets??  I do not think that anyone is suggesting low-income housing at The Banks, but I do not see the problem with having middle-class citizens living downtown...do you??

Local leaders pledge: Banks to break ground this year

April 24, 2007 | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

 

DOWNTOWN - Top elected leaders of Cincinnati and Hamilton County delivered the promise in no uncertain terms: The Banks will start this year.

 

"We have an opportunity to build into this city, greatness ... just like the people of past generations did," Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory told an estimated 1,000 attendees Tuesday at the Courier's annual Commercial Developers Power Breakfast at the Duke Energy Center downtown.

Hmph....sort of bland compared to those other renderings that Monte posted. 

 

Seems the site plan is evolving....it looks like they are doing some sort of expansion on the Bengals stadium side, which is going to change the character of the space somewhat, setting up a more asymetric type of thing vs what was originally proposed.  Could be interesting if they pay close attention to the urban design. 

 

I do like what they are doing with that internal street...making it more of a street, vs the original plan, which had plazas along that street.

 

Here are two quicky diagrams.

 

 

 

...just trying to see how this might work out, spatially. 

 

 

Mecklenborgs comments about the parking revenue west of Vine and why this project is being phased the way it is pretty interesting.  Good catch, or assumption, on that one.

 

So this company has done things in Atlanta similar to this?  Maybe their projects down south are going to be a tastte of  what they are going to be doing here.

 

 

 

 

 

Mark my words...THERE WILL BE AN ESPN ZONE AT THE BANKS!

 

UNCLERANDO, I like your enthusiasm!  cmon finances, get it sorted it out...southshore newport, the ascent, hopefully queen city square phase II, One river Plaza, 5th and Race, all the lofts around downtown, Ovation, Eden Park tower, and now...THE BANKS (Hopefully)

This would be the most logical place for an ESPN Zone as you are between two big pro-ball stadiums. 

 

The food-and-drink aspects of this place could be developed more on a sports theme or sports-bar theme.  Maybe a NASCAR place, too... I know Dayton has that "Ballpark Village" proposal floating around, but this is a real ballpark village.

 

The neat thing is that you sort of have a "Newport at the Levee" thing going on,too.  Not decking over Fort Washington Way means The Banks will be somewhat seperated from downtown, this could be marketed as more of a seperate district, away from downtown, but with downtown as a backdrop or stage set.  Sort of the way Newport at the Levee is somewhat seperated from Newport and is its own complex.

 

 

 

 

As for the whole old vs. new argument, here are some pictures of the old riverfront.  The problem is I don't even trust today's architects to get old right.  It's like, you watch new movies with sets and they get the proportions and approximations of old materials dead-on but for whatever reason in real life real life architects are just clueless.  Just look at Great American Ballpark for an example of how today's architects have no idea what appropriate window sizes and spacing is or how to define a roofline. 

 

 

 

 

 

Pearl & Walnut

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Trollope's Bazarre, demolished around 1850:

 

 

 

As an example of a movie with well-proportioned sets, here are a pair of shots of the simulated French town from Saving Private Ryan:

 

 

 

 

 

Some high res. photos:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see why we need to recreate 'history' every time we see a new development gear up. A city can thrive perfectly fine with modern architectural details, granted that they are designed correctly and blend in with the city. I believe too many people connect the new modernism (i.e. what is above) with the crap that came out of the 1960s and 1970s.

I love historic architecture as much as anyone (well maybe not ink), but I think I'm gonna have to agree with seicer on this one.  Sure modern bldgs lack the ornamentation that Gothic and Classical buildings had/have, but there is nothing wrong with them.  Instead of ornamentation the buildings have more glass and a cleaner look...is that soo bad??  Now I certainly would not want an entire city built like this (cough...Phoenix...cough, cough), but I don't think its a bad thing to have it built.

It's interesting to see the historic photos juxtaposed next to the new renderings.  The architect did a good job at creating a sleek, contemporary neighborhood with an urban focus.  I also like the proportions...it looks like it's built at a pleasant, human scale.

A city can thrive perfectly fine with modern architectural details, granted that they are designed correctly

 

Exactly! I don't find that to be the case here. These buildings don't even work together in the rendering! It is just a bunch of rectangles--literally. Give me a darn arc!!!

 

This is going to be just like the school house lofts project: topping off a great historic beauty (downtown) with an ugly modern mess (the Banks).

 

I'm not opposed to contemporary, but this project is a mess.

 

I do like the little buildings at the end of the bridge, however.

whats up with the areaq on the northeast side closest to the corner of 2nd and main?  Is that a balatanly open parking garage that isnt surrounded by buildings? 

The new design reminds me quite a bit of Hamburg's massive riverfront project, Hafencity.  Here's a link to an article discussing it in detail:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469072,00.html

 

This particular quote from the article sums up my fears of the new renderings thus far:

But is there any room for spontaneity? "No, not really," Bruns-Berentelg admits. "It's not easy because with a newly created city, the question is how it holds together," he says. "The danger is that of creating a post-modern amalgamation."

 

That, in fact, is what many such ambitious development projects have turned into in the past. Berlin's shiny new Potsdamer Platz -- a project likewise directed by Bruns-Berentelg -- may have turned into a tourist magnet, but it hardly fits seamlessly into the city. The London Docklands, while now a popular place to live and work, took years before it was accepted as part of London. And La Défense in Paris -- an eerie collection of skyscrapers built in the 1980s -- somehow jumped straight from futuristic to passé without ever really capturing the hearts of Parisians.

whats up with the areaq on the northeast side closest to the corner of 2nd and main?  Is that a balatanly open parking garage that isnt surrounded by buildings? 

 

I hope not, but it looks like it

^ From the looks of it, they've totally ignored 2nd St. altogether.

Wow. I just noticed that massive parking lot. Hopefully that will go away, or be repurposed if a cap is installed.

^I think that is a garage.

Yep that's definitely a parking garage. In the center you can see the ramp as it goes to the next level and the shadow of the top deck is cast on the ramp. That could also be access to the underground Parking garges and not a garage thats above ground.

Yep that's definitely a parking garage. In the center you can see the ramp as it goes to the next level and the shadow of the top deck is cast on the ramp. That could also be access to the underground Parking garges and not a garage thats above ground.

 

Perhaps, but the site plan doesn't imply that there will even be liner retail on the north side, so that's currently proposed as the blank face of a parking garage.

 

Overall, I also think that the site plan is much better than the old one.  As Jeff pointed out, that particular corner has been designed to be important, and should be treated as such.  I'm a sucker for terminated vistas and I hope they do it right.  I also like how they've eliminated the plazas.  With 8000 acres of parkland a block to the south, no one should be crying for open space.  That street should be tightly packed with as much business and activity as possible.  I guess my major objection is with the scale of what purports to be the main thoroughfare in this (Freedom Way).  You essentially have a block and a half to the west and 2 blocks to the east, bisected by an entire block with nothing but a museum (with little to no street presence) and 2 freestanding restaurants.  This hardly adds up to a destination district suitable for spending a significant amount of time walking around.

 

Perhaps this reiterates my point that the siting of the Freedom Center is horrible to begin with.  It's made it difficult to create a coherent street which is obvious from the plan.  If we had 4-5 blocks or more on either side, it could appear as a civic destination and a break from the street wall (ala Place des Arts in Montreal).  However, the poor design of the site and building make it dead space in what could otherwise be a cohesive shopping/entertainment strip, something that, oddly enough, this city doesn't have. 

 

Don't even get me started on the architecture.  It's as if you sent a group of Drees architects to Vancouver, brought them back, and told them to recreate what they saw from memory.

addenda:

 

1.  Jake, excellent images.  We should remember, though, that Frances Trollope's Bazaar was looked at with as much disgust as we view this proposal.  Yeah, the other pictures exhibit a sense of scale, proportion, and detailing that we're not privy to today, but that one was funny.

 

2.  I'm preaching to the choir here, but the limitations that parking is putting on this project are astounding.  Underground garages notwithstanding, there is an insane amount of square footage devoted to parking here.  Quite a few of the buildings appear to be no deeper than 40'-50' to allow room for parking.  I've worked on projects in suburban areas that have to meet these requirements, but for this to be the case downtown is just sad.  Had the (inevitable) transit been implemented before the Banks, we'd see a much better plan.

 

3. So, Jake again, despite the differences you've shown between Cincinnati and Atlanta, we share the same driving habits, and are unfortunately subjected to the same type of development.

Wow. I just noticed that massive parking lot. Hopefully that will go away, or be repurposed if a cap is installed.

 

2.  I'm preaching to the choir here, but the limitations that parking is putting on this project are astounding.  Underground garages notwithstanding, there is an insane amount of square footage devoted to parking here.  Quite a few of the buildings appear to be no deeper than 40'-50' to allow room for parking.  I've worked on projects in suburban areas that have to meet these requirements, but for this to be the case downtown is just sad.  Had the (inevitable) transit been implemented before the Banks, we'd see a much better plan.

 

I can't believe how much ground level parking is being provided.  It is ridiculous.  What lines of communication are there between the city's planned Streetcar line terminating immediately in front of this development and the county and the builders?  I suspected the relationship between MARTA and these developers was b.s.  I'm of a mind to actually write the commissioners, though I doubt that will do any good.

I will say it does appear there is some weak connectivity between the main retail area (Freedom Way running east and west) and the streets running north and south into downtown. Hopefully some kind of link will be made with the potential caps in the future or this project may turnout to be its own little island. They need to ensure that the pedestrian feels well connected to the Fountain Square area (i.e. minimal breaks in ground level buildings).

2.)Many people simply like older architecture better. What comes across as 'sleek and cool' to some looks 'cold and sterile' to others. This seems to be the biggest problem with modern architecture. Its cool for about 10 maybe 20 years tops but then it gets really dated really quickly. There are those who see classic architecture not as ancient and primitive but as 'romantic' pieces of artwork with an incredible amount of attention to detail.

 

Not really. Architecture that was 'modern' in the 1960s up to the 1970s (and 1980s) dated fast because they were considered on the fringes of what was acceptable. Large amounts of concrete used. Stalin-like designs -- boxes, rectangles, etc. that composed your entire viewing angle. Smaller windows for efficiency. Large concrete public plazas. Considered Brutalist in a good sense. You want a good example? Check out Northern Kentucky University's campus. It's original structures from the 1970s to the 1980s were considered Brutalist, cold, and... boring. It's only undoing the mistakes of its past with its new campus expansions by designing modern, clean structures.

 

What I see in the building stock for The Banks is clean lines, lots of windows for maximum sunlight, colorful uses of steel supports (blue, orange, etc.), street-level decorative elements, on-street parking, centralized parking garage, flora, etc. It shouldn't become outdated, but over the years it will develop a sense of unique character.

 

I see it this way: People traveling in will see The Banks before they will see the downtown (esp. those coming from NB I-71/75 and I-471). A progressive city with this massive riverfront development, set with a grand backdrop of old and classical architecture. The Banks will not have buildings that will be incredibly tall, so it will provide good balance visually.

Speaking building heights, there's no way the Bengals allow 20 story buildings or anything approaching the height of the ghost buildings in the rendering next to PBS. That's completely misleading.

 

One would think that the intersection of 2nd and Main would be of primary concern in Phase 1, what with it being across the street from GABP and the main approach to the ballpark. This should be a signature part of the design, not an afterthought.

why is it that everybody thinks picking a modern style and staying with it is a bad thing. personally I never understood why some of the buildings or neighborhoods considered the best modern architecture are some of the ugliest to the eye. I like the new banks (and its rectangles lol) and I'm glad it won't have some funky epcot center ball or something artistic and ugly like that or that it doesn't look like UC campus (ugly, though architecturally applauded) which I finally never have to stare at anymore now that I've graduated lol.

NAACP may ask for 'no' votes on Banks

BY JESSICA BROWN | [email protected]

April 25, 2007

 

CINCINNATI - The local branch of the NAACP may ask the two new members of the Banks Working Group to vote "no" on a development deal because of a lack of minority inclusion on the project. A unanimous vote is required for the project to move forward. NAACP President Chris Smitherman said in a release Tuesday that the Working Group, the city-county body charged with recommending a development plan, had not established partnerships with any African-American developers or investors.

 

"Shame on the Banks Working Group," he said. "The message was clear. 'Let's build it. Let's exclude you (African-Americans) from ownership and equity.' "

 

For more, click the link above

Reporter Jane Prendergast contributed

"and I'm glad it won't have some funky epcot center ball or something artistic and ugly like that or that it doesn't look like UC campus (ugly, though architecturally applauded) which I finally never have to stare at anymore now that I've graduated lol."

 

Are you serious?! Crosley Tower, Dabney Hall, the Business School, yes. But the rest of the school is amazing in my opinion. The Steger Center, College of Engineering and DAAP are my personal favorites. You wanna see an ugly school, go check out the University of Louisville. It's a damn industrial park.

 

 

Im actually glad they chose a modern architectural style. It's downtown, people. Not sure if you noticed but there is PLENTY OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE DOWNTOWN! Don't act like it doesn't fit into the context of downtown; our CBD is SUPPOSED TO BE ECLECTIC. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the ignorant rants you hear in barbershop conversation around here is that Cincinnat was, is, and always will be "stuck in the past", then its usually followed by someone bringing up our favorite Mark Twain quote. I love old brick buildings as much as the next urbanist dork but what better way to help change our perception of being non-progressive than by building something this modern. And furthermore, what is wrong with big windows? Who wants to live in darkness or have a higher energy bill when you can have natural light?

Hey, UofL has its redeeming qualities :)

 

But yeah, parts of it do resemble an industrial park. Especially its more suburban campus.

also, can we have some sort of movement to get freedom way changed to something less...corny.  I suppose this isnt that big of a deal but come on, if this is gonna be the main drag of a very important center in our city, then shouldnt it be something better and less generic?

what better way to help change our perception of being non-progressive than by building something this modern.

 

So you think we should make major decisions on one of the largest projects in Cincinnati history based on "ignorant rants?"

 

Anyway, just being modern doesn't mean much, it has to be good design as well.

 

Oh, and about the large windows: there is a diffence between large windows (which many old buildings have) and walls of glass. Again, nothing necessarily wrong with a glass building, I'll admit I kind of like the Pinnacle project in Cleveland (please don't spread that around ;) ).

also, can we have some sort of movement to get freedom way changed to something less...corny.  I suppose this isnt that big of a deal but come on, if this is gonna be the main drag of a very important center in our city, then shouldnt it be something better and less generic?

 

I agree, but I doubt it. There was a gentleman at the meeting who was pushing for a veteran's memorial on the lawn south of the Freedom Center to honor those, and I'm paraphrasing here, who sacrificed so that we could name a street Freedom Way. I wanted to let out a Braveheart yell, but I thought better of it.

 

I'm ok with some statuary memorial actually, but it'd be a lot cooler if two of those veterans were Hamilton, for whom our county was named, and Grant, our region's preeminent badass. They have the added benefit of having actually ensured, protected, or otherwise extended freedom.

theres nothing wrong with being modern.  a buildings look is completely subjective.  I personally think that the ascent is beautiful but there are a lot of people who don't like it at all.  In the end, in my personal opinion, its the unique that stands out, not the other way around.  Guarentee the first national bengals game on television will show the ascent more than once...Unique demands attention (in a good or bad way)

Some high res. photos:

 

 

Well, this development will really "turn the city around".  I mean this in a literal sense given that the shadows on rendering of the plan shows the sun coming from the Northwest! :wink:

JMecklenborgs pix of what was south of Third, & all demolished...well, Jesus H. Christ!  And the loss of that Chamber of Commerce building, too...heck....

 

Now this pix is interesting, as I thought the land sloped all the way down to the Ohio waterline, but it looks like there really was a second bottom of flat land after the first slope down from the main Basin terrace.

 

 

...I guess after a block or two of flat, the land made the final slope to the river via that wide open wharf that you see in old pix of the riverfront.

 

As an example of a movie with well-proportioned sets, here are a pair of shots of the simulated French town from Saving Private Ryan

 

...got another simulation.....a simulated prewar German city.

 

1944

 

 

Today

 

(this the Samstagberg, or Saturday Hill, across from the old town hall of Frankfurt, and was reconstructed only in the 1980s I think..just to show you that it is possible to bring back a city).

 

And thanks for the larger renderings.  I can see a bit more of whats going on here.

 

Here are some comments

 

 

...Freedom Way (can we rename it New Pearl Street?) could be pretty good, but I think street trees are just too fru-fru, for that dense urban feel one would like to have in the interior of this complex.  And if you take the trees out you could tighten up the street space a bit.  I do like what they are trying to do design-wise with this block, by using a modernist vocaburlary to some extent, but also working in trad porportions and doing little references to trad detailing, like big cornices. 

 

I like the front facing the park too, esp the way it works on two levels and is sort of a formal, repetetive space, similar to English terrace houses or similar things on the Continent.  In the USA, the example would be the Pontabla Buildings in NOLA or maybe Louisbourg Square in Boston...you get this somewhat intimate rowhouse/terrace space fronting the park, but still formal and quasi-monumental.

 

Also, what i liked about the UofL Campus as I knew it was that it was very pleasantly wooded, with very tame squirrls.  The industrial park analogy is pretty much BS considering how the modern buildings built in the 60s and 70s worked within the circulation system set up by the old campus, and fit in fairly well, especially the Bingham Humanities Building, which was a true "New Brutalist" building of the 1960s (brutalist in this sense comes from the French term beton brut, or rough quasi-finished concrete), but a failry elegant one.

 

Enough of UofL.  The Banks is going to have some nice bits, but there are some clear faux pas too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Freedom Way (can we rename it New Pearl Street?) could be pretty good, but I think street trees are just too fru-fru, for that dense urban feel one would like to have in the interior of this complex.  And if you take the trees out you could tighten up the street space a bit.  I do like what they are trying to do design-wise with this block, by using a modernist vocaburlary to some extent, but also working in trad porportions and doing little references to trad detailing, like big cornices.

 

A couple of responses for you...

 

First off, I don't think that a 2 driving lanes and 2 parking lanes w/curb bump outs is too wide.  Thats only about 60 if you have 10ft wide sidewalks on both sides of the street.  That seems like a good street canyon to me.

 

Secondly, I couldn't disagree more with your comments about the street trees.  I think that all streets should be lined with trees...its a great tool to soften up the hardscape of the urban fabric.  Not to mention the obvious environmental benefits they have.  They also provide shade and pleasant places for people to walk about.  Street trees are a VERY necessary element of most any urban design plan.  It almost always adds tons of character and charm to the project that would otherwise be all concrete, glass, etc.

  I really wish you guys didn't point out the big ass parking lot. I was starting to get to like this whole thing. Even if they are parking garages they should have absolutely no visible parking lots in a project this important. Especially being visible through a huge void on 2nd Street. I would hate to be one of the people living in a condo at The Banks with a view of a parking lot or parking ramp.

  Everyone should bitch and complain as much as they can until they cover the parking and fill the void on 2nd Street.

 

^

I don't like street trees as they are sort of a throwaway, catch-phrase type of landscaping, as I prefer more the contrast between building and park, were greenery or open space in a dense urban fabric like a downtown used sparingly, where it becomes something special via the contrast between it and the surrounding city.

 

In this case you have a very nice riverfront park a block away. So make more of the contrast of a dense hard urban space (like in Mecklenborgs pix, where there was a great downtown neighborhood, with lots of visual interest, but no street trees) and the openess of the park and riverfront.

 

I am thinking of the Chicago Loop, where there is this dense hard urban environment of street canyons without much trees, then you walk out to Michigan Avenue, and have the wide open spaces of Grant Park, lined with a wall of buildings fronting it...the contrast between these two enhances each.

 

As for street trees in downtowns maybe in some special circumstances as in boulevards or alles.  Then they make the street they line special. 

 

Would one plant street trees all over, say, Over The Rhine?  Would that not alter the character of that neighborhood, for the worse?

 

 

 

I really wish you guys didn't point out the big ass parking lot. I was starting to get to like this whole thing. Even if they are parking garages they should have absolutely no visible parking lots in a project this important. Especially being visible through a huge void on 2nd Street. I would hate to be one of the people living in a condo at The Banks with a view of a parking lot or parking ramp.

 

I would think that since it is a garage that there will be some sort of street-level retail hiding the garage behind.  I would hope so at least.  I would highly doubt that they will leave a blank wall like that...especially in that location.

 

I am thinking of the Chicago Loop, where there is this dense hard urban environment of street canyons without much trees, then you walk out to Michigan Avenue, and have the wide open spaces of Grant Park, lined with a wall of buildings fronting it...the contrast between these two enhances each.

 

Would one plant street trees all over, say, Over The Rhine?  Would that not alter the character of that neighborhood, for the worse?

 

First off, Michigan Ave is lined w/trees and has many large planters down most of the street on both sides of the river.

 

Secondly, much of OTR does have street trees...so I'm not sure what your point is there?!?

What I'm wondering is why is there on street parking? Isn't the whole thing built on a parking structure and then there's that parking structure behind the buildings? I understand some accessibility to cars for drop offs and valet, but parking? I wanna see more pedestrian friendly environs with more room for outdoor dining. I realize these are just renderings so I'll give it time.

^Actually on-street parking usually make urban settings more pedestrian friendly.  It provides a buffer between the pedestrian and the moving traffic lanes.  If on-street parking is not there, then the next preferred option is to put in some type of bollards (often seen in Europe...not so much here though).

^ Indeed, on-street parking is a must for every street.

 

And Jeffrey, the Royal Crescent in Bath is definitely something worthy of our aspirations. :)

I'm ok with some statuary memorial actually, but it'd be a lot cooler if two of those veterans were Hamilton, for whom our county was named, and Grant, our region's preeminent badass. They have the added benefit of having actually ensured, protected, or otherwise extended freedom.

 

Dude, I could get you an equestrian statue of Grant by three o'clock this afternoon.  With monumental plinth.

 

There definitely needs to be a real idea as to what this public space is going to be used for, and it's design needs to reflect that.  Otherwise, so called public space quickly becomes a killer of actual public life.  Anyone who has tramped through the windblown and desolate Boston City Hall Plaza to get to Fanueil Hall just as a bunch of people are leaving their swearing-in ceremony to become new citizens and subsequently gets fired up with patriotic fervor in the birthplace of our nation's Revolution knows exactly what I'm talking about.  I don't think the developers, nor unfortunately, our political leaders, really get that.  They seem to be hoping for any development at all which they can then heap superlatives on.

 

And the loss of that Chamber of Commerce building, too...heck....

 

I'm pretty sure that the old Richardsonian Chamber of Commerce building burnt down well before the Riverfront was "refurbished".  I think it stood on 4th Street, where PNC Bank Building now is.

 

What I'm wondering is why is there on street parking? Isn't the whole thing built on a parking structure and then there's that parking structure behind the buildings? I understand some accessibility to cars for drop offs and valet, but parking?

 

Despite UncleRando's comments I too believe this is a mistake.  If we are seriously going to build a streetcar that's terminus will be on the north end of this two block development, then we don't need on street or surface lot parking.  That streetcar should be built with the purpose of reducing trips by car.  It's prospective route allows for access to residence, retail, grocery and one of the two largest employment areas in the region, as well as most of the major local cultural institutions.  The only major institution/service that is not linked to the prospective streetcar system is a direct mode of transit to the airport.  I repeat: parking in this development should be to create revenues for the local government (hopefully as part of an all-incompasing transportation plan/authority), not as infrastructure to support housing at the Banks.  Why should the city/county favor a resident on 2nd street with free amenities that one on 4th, 9th, or 12th Streets does not receive?

rando is right on about the on street parking.  it is a widely used urban design tool to improve the pedestrian experience along dense city streets.  some places it does not work but i believe in most instances, is because the street parking is an afterthought.  if designed with bulbouts, trees, etc. it will be very nice.